The movement to abolish the electoral college

Kudos to Doug Cook for his thorough answer that went the extra mile:
“Janine is drawing a parallel to the populist movement to eliminate the Electoral College system of voting in Presidential Elections. Very similar to how the 17th was couched as the antidote to the poison that the 16th amendment injected into Federalism, elimination of the Electoral College portends to solve a perceived problem of unfair elections. While there is a demonstrated tendency for candidates to focus their campaigns on states yielding the greatest Electoral prize, the proposed solution brings US much closer to a system of mob rule and places another nail in the coffin for Federalism.”

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

80% of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. 9 states determined the 2012 election. 10 of the original 13 states are considered politically irrelevant now. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections. Iowa, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.

With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.